The Glade 4.0

Ahh. Khross is a trauma surgeon and an expert on head injuries too.

What are you basing this on? You have a source that would corroborate that?

The above article says that he banged his unhelmeted head on the pavement. Seems a helmet would prevent exactly that type of fatal injury.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

The june bug parts of this thread reminded me of something I read recently: "What's your most painful insect strike?"

Thread begins with the following and continues for 5 pages:

_________________
Go back to zero, take a pill, and get well ~ Lemmy Kilmister

Nope, just heard he severed his spinal cord on impact from a radio media source talking about the story yesterday.

_________________

I curious Khross, do you wear a helmet when you ride? Why or why not?

Oh, most definitely. Full face shield 90% of the time, too. I cannot stand getting hit in the face with the myriad of flying insects found around here.

That said, "any" accident in which the rider was not wearing a helmet has become "media" and "political" fodder for Helmet Laws.

_________________

I have often wondered why the wearing of seatbelts is an enforceable law, but helmets are not.

Why should either be a law, the person is endangering no one but themselves in both cases.

_________________
This must be Thursday. I could never get the hang of Thursdays.

It's so the victims of an accident have someone to sue when the dust settles.

_________________

A face shield could help prevent accidents (bug in the face/eye) causing the driver to lose control and hit someone.

Seatbelts less so.

This is precisely one of the biggest sticking points for me with mandatory or government-provided healthcare. You're right -- it should be his own personal choice what to do with his life because it should only affect him. But if everyone is drawing claims from the same pool, and that pool must accept everyone, then that's no longer true. His choices affect everyone. And thus there is now a public interest in his private health decisions (risk tolerance in this case).

In that light, helmet laws aren't so much for the personal well-being of those who ride, but rather for the financial well-being of those who don't. And frankly, I'll be surprised if it stops with helmet laws. When it comes to controlling healthcare costs, prohibiting high-risk products/activities that are only popular with a small minority will always gain more political traction than cutting benefits for everyone or prohibiting products/activities that would save far more money, but affect far more people. Ban cigarettes; ban motorcycles; ban trans-fats, etc.

I just don't see how anyone thinks this can end well, unless their attitude is, "well, those things are unpopular so sucks to be you!"

_________________
Sail forth! steer for the deep waters only!
Reckless, O soul, exploring, I with thee, and thou with me;
For we are bound where mariner has not yet dared to go,
And we will risk the ship, ourselves and all.

Comrade, there must be sacrifices of personal freedom for Communism to work.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Out here, in Nevada you must wear a helmet.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Based on the 'Healthcare' justification, you could outlaw smoking, alcohol consumption, junk food, and any "risky/dangerous" activity.... including hiking, skiing, snowboarding, ATV/Dirt Bike riding, bungie jumping, mountain biking, etc...

Those actions affect everyone today just as much as in the "future" you paint. Local law enforcement have to deal with the scene of the accident, hospitals have to deal with the injuries, insurance has to deal with the claims. The fact of the matter is that we all pay for those individual's choices today as well.

This has always been one of my largest concerns. Where the rubber meets the road lifestyle subsidisation requires lifestyle management. But I think that's rather the point of the whole damn thing to begin with.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Ok, but public resources still have to deal with this fallout. For all the same reasons that uninsured motorists costs others money.

I know many here advocate for turning away those who have no way to pay for health care (uninsured) --but those of us with some kind of humanity in them prefer not to advocate for policy of turning away people in need despite their prior choices.

Anyone can make a mistake. Anyone can be too arrogant. But I refuse to condemn everyone as a moocher, who does not have insurance (or wear a helmet, or whatever) because they were too young (and convinced they were immortal) or too stupid on that basis.

I'd rather help 9 people who didn't deserve it to make sure we got the 1 who did legitimately need our help.

It seems to me that many who make the argument that those 9 moochers, leeches or whatever you want to call it are also those who cry foul first at any implication of police overstepping their bounds and wrongfully prosecuting someone.

Same equation, slightly different variables.

I understand that **** happens. People get sick and such. But for those that can't be bothered to take reasonable precautions, screw em.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Ok, so why not do away with motorcycles altogether, then? The empirical evidence is clear. Motorcyclists are more likely to be involved in an accident, more likely to be injured if they are, and the injuries are more severe than other motorists.

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

And sports cars, and convertibles....

Reservoir tip condoms. And pretzels with "excessive" sodium.

Don't kid yourself, they would love to get rid of everything they deem harmful to you.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

As long as the "campaign contribution" is in hand, they'll be happy to ban or block anything - harmful to you or not.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones

Ahh, but there's the rub: If they want to ban it, they'll deem it harmful.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Stathol's comment about the financial well being of others is correct. Having seen many people after both MVA (motor vehicle accident) and MCA (motorcycle accident) and the life long costs involved I have a suggestion. That suggestion is that if a person wishes to participate in a hazardous avocation, that they must set up resources for their care if ever seriously injured. Make the individual responsible, not the rest of society. (Foreign concept I know.)

This leaves people free to do what they wish as long as they are responsible for the outcome.

About this specific event; if indeed the injury was severing of the spinal cord, a helmet would only make the MORE likely to happen. This effect of helmets is a known problem, but accepted because they prevent many more injuries than they cause because of this fact. In fact, race car drivers wear a modified helmet to prevent just this problem. This would not work with motorcyclists because it limits head mobility far too much.

_________________
Memento Vivere

I have local knowledge.
That sandbar was not there yesterday!

Only partially true. The technology is coming along and over time (like everything else) will become more prevelant.